Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to reintroduce the Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act, a companion to Senator Akaka's bill of the same name, which will provide for the expedited reunification of the families of our Filipino World War II veterans. I am pleased to be joined in this legislation by Representatives Neil Abercrombie, Bob Filner, Michael Honda, Madeleine Bordallo, Robert ``Bobby'' Scott, Jim McDermott, Darrell Issa, Sam Farr, Al Green, Raul Grijalva, and Phil Hare.

As you know, Filipino veterans are those that honorably answered the call of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served alongside our armed forces during World War II. They fought shoulder to shoulder with American servicemen; they sacrificed for the same just cause. We made a promise to provide full veterans' benefits to those who served with our troops. And while we have recently made appreciable progress toward fulfilling that long-ignored promise, we have not yet achieved the full equity that the Filipino veterans deserve.

In 1990, the Congress recognized the courage and commitment of the Filipino World War II veterans by providing them with a waiver from certain naturalization requirements. Many veterans thereafter became proud United States citizens and residents of our country. However, allowances were not made for their children and many have been waiting decades for petition approval.

The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act would allow for the further recognition of the service of the veterans by granting their children a special immigration status that would allow them to immigrate to the United States and be reunified with their aging parents. It is important to note that the Filipino soldiers who fought under the command of General Douglas MacArthur at this critical time in our Nation's history represent a unique category. These soldiers were members of the United States Armed Forces of the Far East. They were led to believe that at the end of the conflict they would be treated the same as American soldiers. It took more than 60 years to begin to make good on our commitment. The Filipino Veterans Family Reunification Act recognizes the special circumstances of this group of soldiers.

I would like to submit into the record an editorial from the Honolulu Advertiser that supports the expedited reunification of these families as a meaningful way to make amends for the injustice experienced by these brave soldiers. As the editorial frankly states, ``Reuniting these men with their children is not only the fair thing for the U.S. government to do, it's the least it could do.''

Last year, my home State of Hawaii celebrated the 100th anniversary of the first Filipino immigrants to arrive on U.S. soil. We are exceptionally proud of the accomplishments of our Filipino community and confident that the next 100 years will be as successful. It is unfortunate that prospective family-based immigration applicants from the Philippines face substantial, often decades-long, waits for visas.

In Honolulu, I recently had a meeting with a group of Filipino veterans from my district. I listened to many heartbreaking stories of sons and daughters waiting patiently in the Philippines with the hope that one day they will be able to come to the United States to care for their aging parents. The need to complete these families of our veterans is great.

As our Filipino veterans are entering the sunset years of their lives, Congress is running out of time to fulfill our obligations to them. I look forward to working with my colleagues by providing for the reunification of our Filipino World War II veterans with their families.

[From the Honolulu Advertiser, Feb. 25, 2007]

Filipino Vets' Families Deserve Special Status

Filipino veterans, who fought alongside U.S. troops during

World War II, have waited far too long--more than 60 years--

to get what's due them.

While they still seek full pension benefits from Congress,

another key measure would give them something that could be

more important in their senior years: family reunification.

Senate Bill 671, recently introduced by U.S. Sens. Dan

Akaka and Daniel Inouye, grants special immigrant status to

the children of naturalized Filipino veterans, enabling them

to move up in the visa backlog that has had some family

members waiting for entry to the U.S. for nearly 20 years.

Indeed, this solution is not a simple one. In the aftermath

of Sept. 11, visa policies were rightly revamped and strictly

enforced. To expedite the process for these family members

and not others merits concern.

But let's look at the bigger picture: An estimated 200,000

Filipinos were drafted in 1941 to fight under Gen. Douglas

MacArthur when war broke out. The men were promised

citizenship and benefits by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

But Congress reneged on the promise with the Rescission Act

of 1946.

Not until 1990 did the Immigration Act allow these men

citizenship. But they have yet to receive the same benefits

as their GI counterparts, and the change in immigration law

did not extend the same rights to the veterans' sons and

daughters.

Today, there are an estimated 5,000 Filipino veterans in

Hawai'i and the Mainland, according to the American Coalition

for Filipino Veterans, but most are well into their 80s and

90s--and their number is quickly dwindling.

Reuniting these men with their children is not only the

fair thing for the U.S. government to do, it's the least it

could do.

And Congress shouldn't stop there. The aging veterans

deserve to see the final piece in their struggle for equity:

the granting of full pension benefits that could mean $200 a

month per veteran.

For these men, it's more than just a paycheck--it's a

promise.

Madam Chairman, I rise to strongly support this bill. The principle at stake here is the freedom that all workers should have to organize, to bargain for better working conditions, fair wages and real benefits.

There are many employers around the country who honor this freedom. Unfortunately, there are also many employers who do not. These employers attempt to prevent workers from unionizing by using tactics that amount to intimidation and harassment, if not outright firing. In fact, one in five people who try to organize unions are fired. These tactics are already illegal, but the penalties are so minor, they are not effective deterrents.

Even after overcoming these obstacles and successfully organizing, many workers do not see the benefits of unionization for years because employers can drag their feet as in signing a first contract.

The system destined to protect workers' rights needs fixes, and the Employee Free Choice Act is landmark legislation to do just that. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in support of this resolution. The Iraq war has lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II and has cost the Nation hundreds of billions of dollars. We have lost over 3,000 of our finest men and women. Thousands more have been maimed and too many lives have been shattered.

As Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos said, this ``resolution will establish the first marker,'' the first step toward ending this nightmare.

The war in Iraq is the moral issue of the day, and like all great moral issues, there are heartfelt disagreements on both sides of the aisle. But every second, minute, and hour that passes, lives are being lost in Iraq and devastation continues with no end in sight.

We owe it to all the brave men and women who have already sacrificed so much, over 3,000 of them who have made the ultimate sacrifice, to steer our country on a course that will bring our troops home safely, take care of them and their families when they return and end this war.

Despite 4 years and deadly losses, according to Foreign Policy Magazine's recent survey of over 100 top national security experts, 86 percent say the world is more dangerous for the U.S., and, most troubling, 87 percent believe that the war in Iraq has had a negative impact on the war on terror. Other surveys have reached similar conclusions.

Yet the President now wants another $235 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan to add to the $427 billion for the war already approved. In this debate, we should listen in particular to the words of Americans who actually served in the war. I am honored to serve in this Congress with new Members Joe Sestak of Pennsylvania, Tim Walz of Minnesota, and Patrick Murphy, also of Pennsylvania, all veterans of the Iraq war. Their eloquent and strong voices of firsthand experience add immeasurably to this debate.

There are also people like Captain Lisa Blackman, a clinical psychologist who cared for soldiers in Qatar. As we become increasingly aware of the thousands of soldiers to emerge from firefights or attacks physically unscathed but with substantial emotional damage, Captain Blackman's experience in regularly tending to these soldiers provides further troubling insights into this devastating war.

In a message chronicled in the book Operation Homecoming, Dr. Blackburn wrote of how her patients responded to questions she asked them about their symptoms. She didn't get the expected reactions. They were unexpressive. But when she asked them, ``Have you ever been in combat?'' they became unglued and burst into tears.

As she described it, ``[W]hen I say burst, I mean splatter, tears running . . . sobbing for minutes on end, unable to speak, flat-out grief . . . '' She observed, ``No one ever feels like they are doing enough. If you are in a safe location, you feel guilty that your friends are getting shot at and you aren't. If you are getting shot at, you feel guilty if your buddy gets hit and you don't. If you get shot at but don't die, you feel guilty that you lived, and more guilty if you get to go home and your friends have to stay behind. I have not seen one person out here who didn't [check off] `increased guilt' on our intake form.''

Indeed, every soldier who saw combat or the results of combat has likely suffered hidden but disturbing psychological harm to some extent. In spite of this, the Veterans Administration has been deprived of the critical funds necessary for the rehabilitation of these brave troops. The President, who continues to send more and more troops into the war on the one hand, has sought to reduce spending for medical services for these same troops on the other. His budget reduces spending for VA over the next 3 years.

Our troops are not the only ones suffering from the policies of this administration. All Americans who now oppose the war 2-1 are impacted by the massive cuts in or complete elimination of important social, health, education and environmental programs.

The cost of this war keeps going up, adding to our national debt. The interest on our debt alone is more than we devote to the education of our children, care of our veterans, and for the administration of justice combined. This body must go on record in united and solid opposition to the escalation of the war and in complete support of our soldiers and veterans. We must be resolute in our efforts to bring an end to this quagmire.

As Speaker Pelosi said, ``Friday's vote will signal whether the House has heard the American people. No more blank checks for President Bush on Iraq.'

I thank the gentleman for yielding time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of House Resolution 109. Today we will be taking action on two related measures, House Resolution 122, earlier debated, and this resolution.

One of the lowest points in American history occurred 65 years ago when the Constitution and civil rights of 120,000 persons of Japanese ancestry were trampled upon by their own government. Under the cloud of war, hysteria, false rumors and racial bigotry fueled official misconduct that led to the uprooting of innocent aliens and citizens alike in one of the worst wholesale infringements of constitutional rights in the 20th century.

As a consequence, thousands of persons of Japanese ancestry were forced by their own government to dispose of their property, businesses, farms and possessions for pennies on the dollar, if anything at all. Families were split up and sent to different relocation camps. Educations were disrupted, and careers abruptly terminated on only a few days' notice. Wholesale violations of basic constitutional rights were committed in the name of national security. Yet not a single act of sedition or espionage by any of the evacuees was ever proven in any court of law.

To the contrary, the historic exploits of AJA in the 100th Battalion and 442nd Regimental Combat Team in Europe and the MIS in the Pacific and Asia proved that patriotism was not skin deep. The psychological and emotional pain of this experience was so deep that many evacuees never talked about their experiences for decades.

Many who were directly affected by the order live and work among us still. A member of my own congressional staff, my deputy chief of staff, Susan Kodani, was born in the Manzanar Relocation Camp. Her family was then relocated to Michigan, ironically to permit her college-educated father to assist in the war effort.

Many more, of course, suffered personal losses and tragedies more traumatic and devastating. By recognizing the historic significance of the Pinedale Assembly Center and by observing the Day of Remembrance as called for in earlier House Resolution 122, we say to the Nation and our fellow citizens that America can never forget this horrible tragedy. While it directly affected one segment of our population, the ramifications to all Americans are profound and no less relevant today as we wage war in Iraq.

The constitutional rights of all Americans are in jeopardy if any group of citizens can be persecuted without legal justification. We must all stand vigilant and alert for any attempt by any group, whether a small power clique or the majority of Americans, to overstep the bounds of the law for momentary expediency or even for claims of national security during war. The protection of our constitutional rights of all of our citizens require continued vigilance from all of us.

Madam Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 808, establishing the Department of Peace and Nonviolence.

At a time when we are spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the war in Iraq, which the majority of the American public no longer supports, there is a growing call for a diplomatic and political, in other words, a peaceful resolution to this conflict.

The establishment of the Department of Peace and Nonviolence, with its emphasis on education and dispute resolution through peaceful means, sends a clear message to our citizens and to the rest of the world that our country recognizes and values the peaceful resolution of conflicts and differences and that these methods should be emphasized to resolve conflicts at both the individual and national levels.

The Department of Peace is not a new idea. My esteemed and highly respected predecessor from the State of Hawaii, first Representative and then Senator Spark M. Matsunaga, proposed a similar institution 30 years ago as the Vietnam war waged on. After three decades of unresolved conflicts, worsening international relations, and seemingly endless wars around the world, the time has come to bring this great idea to life.

I fully support H.R. 808.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 323, the Seasoned Customer CTR Exemption Act. This bill eliminates a no-longer- necessary regulatory requirement which increases the costs of doing business for hundreds of financial institutions and their customers who ultimately bear the cost of this regulation.

H.R. 323 provides long overdue relief for our financial institutions from the requirement of keeping records and filing reports called Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) to the Treasury Department for any financial transaction valued in excess of $10,000.00.

While the original purpose of the regulation, to identify suspected money laundering activities, was a commendable tool for Federal prosecutors, its utility has been adequately replaced since 1996 by the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports required by Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The CTRs are no longer the primary tool to identify suspected money laundering activities but banks must still file these reports, unless an exemption is given by the Department to certain ``qualified business customers.'' The exemption procedures, however, have been found to be difficult to understand, cumbersome and still required the banks to obtain annual renewals.

This legislation will allow by statute the Treasury Department to issue regulations that would permit depository institutions to apply for an exemption from the requirement to file CTRs on a ``qualified customer.'' The bill defines a qualified customer as any business organized or incorporated under state or federal law that has maintained a deposit account with the institution for at least twelve months and engaged in multiple currency transactions otherwise subject to the reporting requirement.

An estimated 30 percent of the 12 million CTRs received by the Treasury Department were filed on recurring customer transactions that were eligible for exemption under the current law. This bill will relieve financial institutions of the costly and unnecessary requirement to file CTRs in those instances and allow them to file a one-time notice of exemption for each qualified customer.

The Department will still be permitted where justified to suspend, reject or revoke such exemption notices to assure that it performs its legal duties. It also requires the department to report back within 3 years of enactment on the effects of the bill.

This bill is an example of Congress taking appropriate action after reviewing a regulatory requirement that made sense when first enacted but which no longer is needed. Too often, these burdensome requirements continue on the books to the detriment of our business community. Congress should continue to work with our business community to identity other instances of unnecessary regulations and requirements so that appropriate action can be taken.

I just wanted to make a comment about what you just said. You know, there is rhetoric, and then there is action. So while we had hours and hours of debate on all of these bills that we dealt with in the first 100 hours, when it came down to action, so many of the Republicans voted with us. So as the saying goes, ``Where's the beef?'' And frankly, I just want to share with my colleagues from the majority- making class, of which I am very proud, there was an article written in a local newspaper back home about me and how I am doing here, and they quoted a professor from University of Pennsylvania, a political science professor. I don't know why they asked somebody from the University of Pennsylvania. But he teaches a class on how Congress works. And he said, basically, freshmen are hardly ever seen and they are never heard from. Well, nothing could be further from the truth in our class. Not only were we seen, but we were heard from. We were encouraged to speak out. And I think every single one of us had an opportunity to speak on all of these bills, as I certainly did. And so I came here because I really wanted to be responsive to the American people. And as the New York Times only yesterday said, that the House has now approved legislation directly addressing public concerns. And I think that is why we feel really gratified to have been a part of this historic session and to be reminded that prior Congresses, the 104th, 105th, 106th, 107th, 108th, 109th Congresses in the month of January, were taking a break. And we didn't.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to express my strong support for the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act of 2007, which is being introduced today by Senators Akaka and Inouye in the Senate and by Congressman Abercrombie and me in the House.

The central purpose of the bill is to extend the federal policy of self-determination and self-governance provided to the other indigenous peoples of the United States--American Indians and Alaskan Natives--to Native Hawaiians. In addition, the bill establishes an office in the Department of the Interior to focus on Native Hawaiian issues and establishes a federal interagency working group.

The United States Congress has a long history of treating Native Hawaiians as an indigenous people. The special relationship Native Hawaiians have with the Federal Government is evidenced by the more than 160 statutes Congress has passed over the years to address the needs of the Native Hawaiian people. Nonetheless, the Rice v. Cayetano Supreme Court decision highlighted the need to clarify the authority of Congress to deal with Hawaii's indigenous people on a government-to- government basis under the U.S. Constitution's Indian Commerce Clause.

I attended the Rice v. Cayetano hearing at the Supreme Court while I was serving as Hawaii's lieutenant governor. I wanted to hear first hand where the Justices were on the question of whether Hawaiians are indigenous people. Clearly, there was a lack of understanding on this point, which resulted in an unfavorable decision in the case.

It is important to note that the Native Hawaiian Government Reorganization Act, also known as the Akaka bill, enjoys wide support in the State of Hawaii. As demonstrated by the introduction of these bills, the entire Congressional delegation supports the bill. Hawaii's Republican governor also supports the bill, as do the majority of elected officials in the State.

Today is the 114th anniversary of the illegal overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. It is fitting that we come together on this day to pledge to restore to the Native Hawaiian people the inherent right of self-determination our Nation has granted to the other indigenous peoples of our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.

Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5. As a first generation immigrant who came to the United States speaking no English, education was a great equalizer for me, which is why this bill is of particular importance to me. Access to education is critical, but college costs are so high that individuals and families are being priced out of the opportunity.

I worked to put myself through college and law school, but I couldn't have done it without student loans. It took me 15 years to pay those loans back, but I was glad to have them.

Today we have an opportunity to do something concrete, something real, to help make college more affordable and accessible. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill. Education should be the great equalizer, but that can happen only when every qualified student has the opportunity to pursue it. Mahalo.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 4. Talk about an all-American concept, using our purchasing power to lower our costs, something big companies do all the time. This is why I am so pleased that one of the first pieces of legislation before us will help our seniors, our kapuna, as we say in Hawaii, lower their prescription drug costs. I am proud to say that in 2002 Hawaii enacted a law creating a similar program to allow negotiating for lower prescription drug costs.

Thousands of American families spent countless hours studying the Medicare part D process. My family was one of those. I sat with my 82- year-old mother as we worked our way through the confusing plans. Unfortunately, many of the families' efforts were not rewarded with the desired outcome, affordable prescription drugs.

America can do better for our seniors. By giving Medicare negotiating authority, we will take an important step in the right direction. Mahalo.